1

Order filed February 25 , 2020

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00970

- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOSE N. MARADIAGA AND MARIA MARTINEZ

On Appeal from the 505th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas T ri al Court Cause No. 16

- DCV

- 234636



### ORDER
This is an attempted appeal from a letter ruling dated November 8 , 2019

. There is no finality language in the purported decree

. See In re R.R.K ., 590 S.W.3d 535, 543 (Tex. 2019) (discussing Lehman n v. Har

- Co n Corp

. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (“ This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable .”)

. Moreover, t he ruling expressly anticipates the preparation of a “Final Decree of Divorce and all necessary documents to effectuate the di vision of property and obligations

— either counsel may set for entry as necessary.” The underlying proceeding includes a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship and2

the record contains agreed temporary orders signed March 18, 2018. T he November 8, 20 19, ruling addresses only the division of property, debt, and attorney’s fees.
On January 14, 2020 , notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before Ja nuary 24, 2 020, a

ppellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for contin uing the appeal See Tex. R. App

. P . 42.3(a). Appellant responded; appellee did not reply. Citing In re B.D ., appellant contends the rul ing substanti ally complies with the requisites of a final judgm ent. No. 05

– 17

– 00674

– CV , 2017 WL 3765848 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.), abrogated by In re R.R.K , 590 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. 2019). In re B.D. is distinguishable b ecause the ruling in this

case requires further action to memorialize it

. 20 17 WL 3765848, *1 . Moreover, in R.R.K., t he Supreme Court of Texas held that an order lacking the unmistakable language of finality may be ambiguous in a sui t under the Famil y Code. 590 S.W.3d at 544 . The court noted that if a judicial decree ’ s finality is ambiguous, a reviewing court should examine the record to determine the trial court ’ s intent. Id. The reviewing court also may abate the appeal to per mit clarification by the trial court. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 206

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 7.2 provides as follows: The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and ma y allow the modif ied order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record. Tex. R. App. P. 27 .2. Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the trial court so that the parties may seek clarification whether th e trial court’s r uling3

is final and to request further order or orders of the trial court in accordance with Lehmann . A supplemen tal clerk’s record containing any such order(s) shall be filed with the cl erk of this court within thirty days.
If either party chooses to contest jurisdiction, the court requests any motion for dismissal to be filed with the clerk of this court within te n days (1) after a supplemental clerk’s record is filed, or (2) the deadli ne to file the supplemental clerk’s record, if any, whichever occurs first. After examining the appellate record, and on its own initiative after the time to file a supplemental cler k’s record has expired, th is court may dismiss the ap peal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s act ive docket without further order of the court when (1 ) the supplementa l clerk’s record is filed in this court, or (2) the deadline to file the supplemental clerk’s record has passed, whichever occurs first. Th is court also will consider an appropriate moti on to reinstate the appeal filed by either p arty, or the cour t may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.